Quote of the Day, by GearHedEd

Science doesn't kill people; people kill people. Religion doesn't kill people either, but it does tell you WHY you should...

A Question in the Aftermath of the Craig/Harris Debate

Bill takes Q & A's on his website so I just submitted this one:

Bill, in your debate with Sam Harris you claimed God was the grounding of objective morality. That word "God" is problematic though. Until that word is defined, or until you tell us how we know what this "God" wants us to do, or what it is, what you end up saying is that there is an objective grounding to morality, and that's it. But then Sam Harris agreed with you on that score.

What do you say to someone who claims this debate was just about semantics, that is, you both agreed there was an objective grounding to morality, but that the real debate concerned how you each defined the word "God"? Sam does not like that word, nor does he use it, and he would vehemently deny that the word applies to his grounding for morality. But what would you say to the objection that the debate was about what that word means, and you never told us anything about this "God" or how we know what "God" wants us to do, or what it is, so all you argued is that there is an objective grounding to morality, and that's it, in agreement with Harris. And since Harris attacked your notion of God repeatedly he won that debate.

Think he will answer it?

Goodness Without God is Good Enough: William Lane Craig vs Paul Kurtz

This debate took place in 2001. Bill Craig has been debating this topic for a long time. Link. A book came out in 2009 with a transcript of this debate along with other essays: Is Goodness without God Good Enough?: A Debate on Faith, Secularism, and Ethics.Check it out. I am.

Jerry Coyne on Scientism: Are Scientists Arrogant?

See what you think. Hint: Not at all!

Chris Hallquist's Review of the Harris/Craig Debate

Link. In it are links to still other reviews.

Advocatus Atheist: on the Harris/Craig Debate and On Debates in General

Link.

Patricia Churchland's Gifford Lecture - Morality and the Mammalian Brain

Watch the YouTube video below;

William Lane Craig and the Ontological Foundation of Morality

Since Craig made a big deal of this in his debate with Sam Harris, here is Wes Morriston's critique of it. Link. Here's a quote:

Either God has good reasons for his commands or he does not. If he does, then those reasons (and not God's commands) are the ultimate ground of moral obligation. If he does not have good reasons, then his commands are completely arbitrary and may be disregarded. Either way, the divine command theory is false.

History Channel's Mini Series "The Bible" Produced by Mark Burnett Roma Downey is Propaganda and Flat Out Wrong

Biblical scholar Francesca Stavrakopoulou argues that God had a wife - and that her existence was covered up. Make time for this. It is excellent. Must see TV.



You can watch parts 2-4 below.

William Lane Craig's Post-Harris Debate Impressions on Facebook

Here are his comments from Facebook:

It was wonderful being back on the Notre Dame campus again. Even though I am not a Catholic, I felt very much on the home court here and sensed the support of the Christian community. Many have remarked on the terribly low quality of the questions following the debate. What you need to understand is that the audience was loaded with people from the community who are part of the local sceptics group. Last year they also dominated the mikes, with the same intellectually dampening effect. Here's an amusing anecdote we received prior to the debate:

Quote of the Day, By articulett

I think about my believing years, and it would have done me some good to hear people like Harris--or any smart person treating religious beliefs like the crazy delusions they are. When you treat these things with respect, then trusting people assume that there's something worthy of respect there-- that faith is something to be respected. I bet I would have found former preachers and priests turned atheists fascinating-- and there's growing numbers of them.

I'm glad we don't have to tiptoe around peoples' magical beliefs any more. I think there is a lot to be said for declaring the emperor naked. Of course believers will rush and swear that the emperor is wearing magical robes and that they saw them and that the silly person calling the emperor naked doesn't know anything deep about magical fabrics-- but the seeds of doubt will be planted in young minds and they will have a choice that many of us didn't have until later in life.

I do think that religion will mostly be associated with the less educated classes and the poorer in the future. One day people will wonder how it is that people could have ever really believed such crazy things.

Craig/Harris Debate: If You Were Scoring Points Craig Won, But Harris Clearly Had the Better Arguments

I was in the audience and it was quite the debate. Unlike watching online debates I could see each man while the other one was talking. Sam stared at his computer while Craig was talking, sometimes smiling and typing, and Craig would sometimes look puzzled at what Sam was saying.

The audio of the debate can be found here. Someone took notes on the debate which can be found here.

Sam Harris to Debate William Lane Craig Tonight

I'll be in the audience with Chris Hallquist. They'll be debating whether goodness comes from God at 7 PM EST. I'm told live streaming of it can be found here.

Why Do Christians Want a Craig-Dawkins Debate, But Not One With Me?

Although not all Christians say this, some do. Isn't that disingenuous? Surely if they want to see Craig trash Dawkins in a debate then they have no qualms about seeing such a thing, if that should happen with me. Consistency thou art a jewel! They may have other reasons but to say he will trash me cannot be one of them.

I Want To Debate William Lane Craig

Yep, this is well known. I do. Give me a chance. Someone set it up. Many people want to see it. Bill said at one time that the person he fears debating the most is a former student of his. I am that student.

Women Submit, or So Says the Bible

Gandolf argues

For starters,Eve is the one blamed for being convinced and led astray in the garden of eden by the naughty snake that convinces her to eat the fruit of the tree so that they will become as gods, Eve then leads adam astray by helping convince Adam to do likewise through being led by Eves example,thus causing downfall of man.

Lawrence Krauss on His Debate With William Lane Craig

Link.

Quote of the Day, by Christian Philosopher Richard Swinburne

I cannot see any force in an argument to the existence of God from the existence of morality. The Existence of God (p. 215).

If it doesn’t convince him why should it convince me, or anyone else for that matter?

I'll Be Speaking At Denison University

Tomorrow I'll be speaking about my book, The Christian Delusion, on the third floor of Denison University's student union building, Slayter Hall, at 7:30 PM. Denison U. is located in Granville, a central Ohio suburb located east of Columbus. I hope to see some of you there.

If You Were To Debate William Lane Craig How Would You Go About It?

[Posted by John W. Loftus] Jonathan Pearce weighs in on debating Craig below. How would you do it?

The William Lane Craig vs Lawrence M. Krauss Debate

The audio can be found here. The videos can be found here. Enjoy.

Atheism in Your Words

Watch this video below:

A Mysterious Coincidence Can Lead Us To Think Some Agent Did it

Okay, okay, I'm an atheist. But I'll tell you that I was a bit shocked today with something that was so initially mysterious I attributed it to an agent. Yep, me, John Loftus the atheist. A friend on Facebook thought the late Ken Pulliam's blog no longer existed and asked me if Ken's posts on the atonement were lost. Ken's blog is still there so I linked to these posts in a message back to him. And guess what? Well, this is what. Look at the picture and tell me you might not conclude what I did. Remember, Ken was an atheist who is dead and gone. Or, is he? This is what I saw:

William Lane Craig's Brother Mallory Doesn't Believe in God

In the most recent issue of Free Inquiry (April/May 2011) Mallory tells of tragic time when his son Paul narrowly escaped death. His older brother Bill came to visit Paul in the hospital to pray for him and he recovered. Mallory says: "I imagine my brother believes he delivered us a miracle...Whatever happened, Paul is the one who did it, that much I know...God is dead, but Paul's still going." Now there's a person who doesn't accept anecdotal evidence! The interesting thing to me is what Mallory said about Bill: "I still remember when he got religion back in High School--the misfit debate team nerd had found a community to join. Over the subsequent years, his inexorable transition from science-lover to science-denier was fascinating, though heartbreaking, to witness." Mallory, we all have black sheep in our families, eh? ;-)

The Power of the Delusion

I argue that the more often Christians are forced into arguing their faith is merely possible in the face of contrary evidence, rather than probable, then the less likely their faith is true. Every time they do this they are explaining the evidence away by admitting the evidence does not support what they believe. Probability is what matters.

When we take an inventory of the times Christians argue that the evidence supports their faith, and compare them to the times where they are forced into explaining the evidence away, we find something very interesting. Most of the evidence they claim supports their faith doesn’t actually support their particular faith. It is only consistent with their particular faith. The same evidence can be used by other believers to support their faiths too. And of the remaining so-called supportive evidence, at some point along the way Christians must play either the Faith Trump Card or use the Omniscience Escape Clause, or both. That’s all they’ve got when it comes to supporting their particular faith. The rest of what they do is to explain the contrary evidence away by claiming it's still possible to believe despite that evidence.

So in the end, Christians demand that I prove their faith is impossible before they will consider it to be improbable, since most of their arguments are possibility ones rather than probability ones. This demand of theirs allows them to believe in the midst of many powerful arguments to the contrary. But it's an utterly unreasonable demand. That's the power of their delusion.

Daylight Atheism did a parody of what I'm talking about ;-)